DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.322/2014
Sh. Mohd. Rafat Khan
S/o Mr. M. Zaheer Khan
R/o A-64, Ashoka Enclave-II,
Sector- 37, Faridabad- 121003 (HR)
….Complainant
Versus
The Deputy General Manager
Zonal Office
State Bank of Patiala,
2nd Floor, NBCC Place,
Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003
The Branch Manager
State Bank of Patiala
Huda Market, Sector- 3,
Faridabad- 121004
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 19.08.2014
Date of Order : 19.05.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The complainant has filed the present complaint for arrangement letter dated 18.05.2011 to be declared as null and void, OP be directed to fore-close the loan account dated 08.02.2013 and issue an NOC to remove hypothecation. It is also prayed that a sum of Rs.70,000/- be provided for physical, mental and social agony and financial losses and inconvenience caused to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation cost.
The complainant has stated that he availed car loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase a Toyota Etios from the State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as OP). The loan was repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.10,146/- each which was calculated at 10% interest i.e. below BPLR dated 18.05.2011 on redefining balance. Copy of the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is attached as Annexure-B. The OP then made payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to Espirit Toyota. The Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- to the OP on 18.5.2011 on account of service charges and handed 20 post dated cheques payable at Punjab National Bank, BCP, New Delhi and 21 State Bank of Patiala payable at OP-2. A total of Rs.40,584/- was paid by the complainant vide 40 EMIs of Rs.10,416/-. Copy of the statement of account is attached as Annexure-D. It is the case of the complainant that he noticed the irregularity in the rate of interest being charged on 05.02.2013 and in the account statement and then wrote an e-mail to the OP stating that an interest of 12% was being charged on account of car loan amount whereas according to the arrangement letter dated 18.5.2011, the interest on the loan would be 10% i.e. 4.25% below BPLR. It is further stated that the OP assured the complainant vide e-mail dated 25.3.2013 that “your loan account No. 65116150022 with our Branch is to be payable in 48 instalments of Rs.10,146/- each as per Bank’s agreement with you”. The copy of the e-mail is attached as
Annexure-G. The complainant kept paying EMIs as per due date. But to utter shock when he decided to fore-close the loan account on 25.7.2014 the balance demanded and shown in the account statement was Rs.97,450/- which was wrong as per the agreement and the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs.87,164/- which meant that the OP was charging interest @12.5% which is neither as per agreement executed dated 18.05.2011 nor agreement dated 25.03.2013 and neither in accordance with guidelines issued by RBI dated 09.04.2010. The complainant sent a legal notice on 28.7.2014 calling upon the OPs to provide a suitable clarification which was replied by the OP vide their letter dated 14.08.2014. It is the case of the complainant that the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is a generic document with many pre-printed ambiguous conditions and is against public policy and in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, the OP has taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is groundless, misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is stated that it is not a consumer dispute and it is also stated that the Commission has not the requisite jurisdiction. It is also stated that the complainant had taken loan from the State Bank of Patiala, situated at HUDA Market, Sector-3, Faridabad-121004 and all the documents were signed by both the parties at Faridabad. Therefore, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is also stated that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Before this Commission would try the case on merits, it is important to understand whether this Commission has the jurisdiction to try the present case and the Commission is of the view that we do not have the jurisdiction to try the case.
The territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is invoked solely on the ground that the registered office of the OP is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides that a complaint may be instituted in any of the District Commission, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, wherein clauses (a) to (d) are attracted. Section 34 has been reproduced herein below
34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, —
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.
Admittedly, in the facts of this case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither of the opposite parties ordinarily resides or has a branch office or personally works for gain or complainant resides or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Limited (2010) 2 SCC 135 while adjudicating section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 categorically held that State Commission where the “branch office” of OP is situated would have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, only if cause of action had also arisen wherein branch office is situated. Thus, mere existence of branch office would not confer jurisdiction.
Relying on Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Limited the Hon’ble NCDRC in Kaizad Marzban Baraiya vs National Insurance Ltd RP No. 2710/2015 held that:
Therefore, the place of registered office of respondent no.2 by itself shall not confer jurisdiction on the Consumer Forum which otherwise do not have the territorial jurisdiction.
However, a division bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Pratap Chandra Sinha vs Kindle Developers Private Limited 2017 (3) CPR 287 distinguished the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical by holding the same is applicable only to branch office and not registered office of the OP. The Hon’ble NCDRC in Pratap Chandra Sinha allowed the complaint to be entertained at a place where the registered office of OP was situated.
Another Division Bench of the NCDRC, however, in a subsequent judgment in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627 took a contradictory view by rejecting the contention that the registered office of the OP would confer territorial jurisdiction to Delhi State Commission. In this matter no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and the neither the doctor against whom the medical negligence was pleaded, worked for gain in territorial jurisdiction of Delhi State Commission. The cause of action took place at Noida and the doctor also worked in Noida, hence the
Hon’ble NCDRC held that State Commission situated at Lucknow would have jurisdiction. Incidentally, one of the members of bench was common in both the judgments.
In another matter, a single Judge of NCDRC in the matter of BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal I (2020) C PJ103(NC) allowed a complaint to be entertained in Delhi for the reason that the registered office of one of the OP was situated in Delhi. This judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal in SLP no. 10319/2020 vide order dated 21.09.2020.
It is trite that in case of conflicting judgments of the same bench strength, the subordinate Courts have discretion to choose which of the two conflicting judgments to be followed. We follow the Hon’ble NCDRC’s judgement in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh as it is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical and also it is the latter judgment.
Since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither complainant nor OP resides or works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. We are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence direct the same to be returned to be presented in court of competent jurisdiction.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
